That's one of the least offensive pieces of farfetched action in the (red-band) trailer for this movie. I haven't read the comic this is based on so as far as I know this is the real world, the characters are real people and they're driving real cars. They're not in the Matrix (at least not that I'm aware of) so we're expected to believe these things based on the setting they take place in. In the Matrix (the first film), the world was set up to allow for lots of scenarios that would be impossible in a normal setting; and the movie worked because of that.
During this trailer I couldn't help but shake my head and say wha-wha-whaaat?? I'm all for pushing the bounds of what viewers (myself included) are willing to believe in movies, but some of the things in this trailer go so far beyond the realm of possibility, that it's just silly.
But isn't silly, ridiculous action good? Well, in certain cases yes, but not if you want the movie or its characters to stay with viewers any longer than the end credits.
The events that occur in a film/comic/etc HAVE to be believable within the context of the world that was set up for them in order for us to care. Otherwise, you have characters that are unstoppable, can do anything, and run no risk of injury; without that there's no threat. Without the threat there's no conflict. Without conflict there's no story.
Rejected titles for this post were "Nuking the Fridge" and "It Falls Three Times".
______________________
15 comments:
I'm actually quite weary of this movie. I've read the comic and it was pretty good. However, the problem was, the artist basically "cast" the movie in the comic (ie. main character was Eminem, Angelina's char was played by Halle Barry) and the entirety of the comic was based on the main character being not only an assassin, but a fantastic villain, which is exactly why I'm weary of it - they've modified it so much that it isn't even the same story anymore. I will definitely be seeing Wall-E first.
Another movie that does (I think, personally) a great job setting it's world is Shoot 'Em Up. It is as you describe, forgotten after the end credits, yet, in the first 5 minutes, the movie basically tells you to turn your brain off and just go along for the stupid ride, which I respect.
Great posts as always, are you going to be at SDCC?
R.
hmmm, indeed.
I guess it's hard sometimes, film-makers all want to be like the next matrix when it came out. I remember so many films that started doing "bullet time" as well, its kinda sad because those film-makers are just copycats copying whatever is the latest flavour of the week, kinda sad.
Anyway, Glad to hear cora is ready and finished, I can't wait to get a hold of it and read it
cheers to you
-LFW
Ted,
I agree with Randeep.
If you want to see absolute absurdity and foolishness, watch
ShootEmUp
http://www.newline.com/properties/shootemup.html
It is one of worst movies that I ever seen. I was surprised as Clive Owen (Children of Men) and Paul Giamatti (Sideways) are good actors. There is one scene where Clive Owen character is having a shoot out the bad guys while he is having sex with Monica Belluci character. The worst thing is that Michael Davis, the director is a former storyboard artist.
It is one WTF scene after another. Is there a storyboard guild? Watch this movie and complain the guild.
cK
Sorry Ted,
Though I fully agree with you, I have to disagree as well.
You see, as far fetched as the action sequence may be, it's James McAvoy.
He's dreamy. So all is forgiven.
;) fong
T,
good post, i agree with your thoughts and i felt the same way about iron man when he flies up about 3 miles in a metal suit and then lands in a sand dune with only minor scratches on his body. and then walks it off.
i was like, huh? this isnt a COMIC! this is live action. you cant expect people to be as forgiving to real people as they are to cartoon drawings!
anyway, it ruined the film for me and believability went out the window. i didnt care for his life anymore and the conflict went dead.
>oVi
Ovi - I agree with you about Iron Man, but I still enjoyed it (probably because my expectations were so low). I found it very hard to believe his captors didn't know he was making a suit of armor loaded with weapons when he was supposed to be making a missile. They acted like complete idiots.
The character stuff with Stark (specifically at the press conference after his return from captivity) helped a lot to make up for the dodgy moments for me.
T,
totally agree. i wrote a rant on louie del carmens blog about it.
i wont be able to make it to the con, but let me know if i can pay you for a signed copy of CORA.
thanks>oVi
Is nuking the fridge the new jumping the shark?
Just a quick note as someone who like to read but not comment that I'm hoping to pick up a copy of Cora when it comes out, but wondering if I will be completely lost, having not read Rose & Isabel?
Thanks.
Haven't read the comic nor seen the movie yet, so I don't know the basic premise this world resides in. But the trailer has people "curving" bullets and shooting the wings off flies(!). With that in mind, jumping one car over another and shooting through the sunroof seems like a piece of cake. But I'm a bit puzzled by your comments here: As long as a movie sets up its rules early and remains consistent with them throughout the movie, how is that a problem? Everything I saw in the trailer seemed so over the top, I rather doubt that the intent is that this is the same planet Earth of say, The French Connection. Also, while I agree with you about unstoppable characters (I've worked on my share of cartoon and comic book jobs where super-duper powerful mutant superheroes were matched up against, of all things...ninjas!) But the trailer seems to set up that these characters aren't bulletproof or invulnerable, that they are a small elite working outside the bounds of the law, and are at the very least vulnerable to other similarly superpowered beings. Certainly these guys are no more powerful than the Incredibles! Anyway, I'll probably see it this weekend...maybe it will indeed be a piece of shite...or not...we'll see!
I guess this means you didn't like the new Indy Jones either?
I completely agree with you dude. I find myself of late being forced over and over to just accept the bland soup of story that I have been given at the box office. I too can accept and forgive a lot in a film but there is a fine line that one should try and balance on. The boundary between our world and the one on the screen.
Like Anson, I'm a little surprised at the comments as from the opening scene of the movie we are introduced to these characters as being much more then human. (A man through sheer force of will and timing jumps from a building (Thru a plate glass window no less) in one city block to another building across the street, and 50 floors up! far from trying to present this as the 'real world'
For me it was a lot of fun, and quite a bit better then I expected it to be which was a nice surprise.
I did read the graphic novel, but haven't yet seen the movie. Based on the trailers I've watched, if anything, the movie will be MORE believable than the comic, because the comic is based in the thinly-veiled version of the DC universe. Superman's in there, as are a ton of super-powered villains (e.g., Angelina Jolie's character is Catwoman.) It looks to me as though they've completely excised the "super-powers" and instead imbued the characters with "super-natural" abilities.
I can see why they did that -- budgetary concerns, audience appeal, etc. -- but I can't imagine it's going to be much like the original.
i havent seen a movie in the theatres for a while, but i would consider leaving the house for wanted.
i love to see angelina on the big screen, i love r rated action, but the main draw is the director.
his two films nightwatch and daywatch are jaw droppingly incredible. the really stretch what youre willing to accept - and perhaps they should suck even - but what saves them for me is the one thing all his set pieces have in common - they have impact.
not in a vague sense, like they affect you, the viewer. i mean there is real, believable damage and strain to elements. in daywatch there is a scene where an immortal character is hit by a train. as it comes crashing to a halt, all the snow flies from the roof. i know that sounds pretty common sense, but the way it is filmed is quite special. another bit has horses crashing through solid walls. again, the way the walls crumble makes the impossible seem - if not believeable - then at least really cool.
i recommend both these films to you, ted. the man knows how to frame an image. and the cutting is fantastic. it is not empty junk like i imagine shoot em up is. there is some cool mythology at work and arresting visuals and they never drag despite their length.
ive taken your word for it about films before and you never steered me wrong and i wonder if i can do the same for you.
dany
While I understand what some people are saying about Shoot 'Em Up, that basically was the point of the movie - it was a parody of shoot 'em up films.
As for this film, however, I'm right with you. Unless it is stylistically shot to evoke a comic (see Sin City, Heroes S1), it will come off as pretentious and forgettable.
I think one thing that a lot of people forget when it comes to movies is that movies are not real. They are entertainment and while characters' motivations and needs and wants should be grounded in reality, that doesn't mean the physical reality of the movie should be.
If movies are supposed to be so "real"then how do you account for 'movie time' - ya know, when something happens in a matter of seconds on screen when we all know in real life it would take minutes. Or what about the instant messaging convesations that happen in movies? people are always reading outloud what they type and everything is always just one click away when in reality - our reality - it takes 2 or 3 or 5 clicks. But in "movie time", those little inaccuracies are excused. Same thing with city layouts in movies/tv shows. When watching a movie and a character in NYC or Boston or Seattle or Paris turns the corner and is suddenly ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CITY that is excused because it is "movie time" or "movie settings". Its not supposed to be REALITY but rather a representation of reality. The first example of this that comes to mind is Rush Hour 3, in Paris. They're in the cab and in one shot they are in the 4th arrondissement and the next shot they are across the city in the 13th. Cracked me up.
With Wanted, you can't expect our 'reality', you have to accept the reality of the film. Same thing with the Matrix and Star Wars and ET and any superhero movie or sci fi movie or fantasy movie.
Why do all movies have to be set in OUR reality? What about other versions of our own reality?
If you want reality watch a documentary. [And then, who knows what reality you're watching - yours or the film maker's?]
Post a Comment